$1*51 
.£3PC 



D 651 
.E3 F6 
Copy 1 



THE CASE OF EGYPT 



Presented by 

JOSEPH W. FOLK 

Counsel for the Egyptian Delegation Selected by the 

Legislative Assembly of Egypt and Other 

Representative Egyptian Institutions. 



Washington, D. C, 






<^\j> 



THE CASE OF EGYPT. 

I. 



Great Britain in time of war seized Egypt under the guise 
of a protectorate and now, in violation of the principles 
of the proposed League of Nations and of common 
justice, asks that the seizure and continued holding of 
Egypt be approved by the United States and other 
nations and that Egypt, without the consent of the 
Egyptians, be turned over to Great Britain as a subject 
and conquered nation. 

The annex to the Versailles Treaty, Section 6, Ar- 
ticle 147, provides: 

Germany declares that she recognizes the pro- 
tectorate declared over Egypt by Great Britain on 
December 18th, 1914, and that she renounces the 
regime of the capitulations in Egypt. This renun- 
ciation shall take effect as from August 4th, 1914. 

It will be noted that this article purports merely to 
declare the position of Germany. The United States 
and other nations, parties to the Treaty, are not men- 
tioned in the Article in question. The apparent pur- 
pose in including this as an annex to the Treaty is to 
have the United States and other nations, through the 



Note: Kespecting the Capitulations, Sidney Low in "Egypt in 
Transition", says, on page 251: "Most people know roughly what 
the Capitulations are, but it is only the resident in Egypt who is 
fully aware of the manner their — most baneful— influence is exercised. 
The Capitulations are the treaties and conventions which give Euro- 
£ ea £ S l n the East the ri S ht of exemption from the local tribunals. 
* If a foreigner commits a- crime he cannot be arrested by the 

Egyptian police, nor may he be brought up before an Egyptian judge 
and tri'ed by the Egyptian law. The police or the aggrieved party can 
only bring him before his own consular court. And before he can be 
punished it must be proved that he has committed an offense not only 
against the law of Egypt, but against the law of his own State, or, 
at any rate, against such local law as the consular authorities agree to 
recognize." 



ratification of the Treaty, recognize the "protector- 
ate" proclaimed by Great Britain over Egypt, and thus 
make the status of Egypt an "internal" question to 
Great Britain and beyond the jurisdiction of the Coun- 
cil of the League of Nations. 

But is the holding and governing of Egypt, without 
the consent of the Egyptians, a protectorate in a legal 
sense? A protectorate, in international law, generally 
speaking, is a relation assumed by a strong nation to- 
ward a weak one, whereby the former protects the 
latter from hostile invasion or dictation ; a protectorate 
recognizes the sovereignty of the nation protected. 

In Egypt, however, there is the situation, not of a 
protectorate recognizing the sovereignty of Egypt, but 
of the appointment by Great Britain of a Sultan of 
Egypt, the supremacy of the British flag in Egypt, and 
control of the affairs of Egypt with the same effect as 
if Egypt had been annexed to the British Empire. 

The Egyptians are today governed without their 
consent by Great Britain. Great Britain has assumed 
sovereignty over Egypt. 

The occupation of Egypt by British troops was until 
December 18th, 1914, claimed by the British Govern- 
ment to be merely temporary for the purpose of sup- 
pressing "rebels" or of collecting debts due Europeans 
from Egyptians. After the beginning of the World 
War and on December 18th, 1914, Great Britain pro- 
claimed a so-called protectorate over Egypt. The proc- 
lamation seizing Egypt and placing Egypt under the 
British flag is published in the London Times of De- 
cember 19, 1914, page 8, column 3. It reads: 

In view of the action of his Highness, Abbas 
Helmi Pasha, lately Khedive of Egypt, who has 
adhered to the King's enemies, His Majesty's 
Government has seen fit to depose him from the 






->/ 



Khedivate, and that high dignity has been offered, 
with the title of Sultan of Egypt, to his Highness 
Prince Hussein Kamel Pasha, eldest living Prince 
of the family of Mehemet Ali, and has been ac- 
cepted by him. 

The King has been pleased to approve the ap- 
pointment of Prince Hussein to an honorary 
Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath on 
the occasion of his accession to the Sultanate. 

The Sultan so appointed by Great Britain to rule 
over Egypt represents the sovereignty, not of Egypt, 
but of England. This seizure of Egypt by Great Brit- 
ain is shown on the face of the proclamation to be os- 
tensibly a war measure. But how can a continuation 
of Great Britain's assumed sovereignty over Egypt 
be justified now that the war is over and a League of 
Nations is to be established upon the principles of the 
right of self-determination in all nations and that gov- 
ernment everywhere must be based upon the consent 
of the governed? 

The Manchester Guardian, in the issue of December 
18, 1914, commenting on the seizure of Egypt, said 
that the action taken by Great Britain with respect to 
Egypt was tantamount to annexation, and did not dif- 
fer in any essential point from the assumption of 
complete sovereignty. The facts show this statement 
to be true. 

The London Times, in the issue of December 19th, 
1914, had large headlines saying, "Egypt Under the 
British Flag". But the Times, in an editorial in the 
issue of same date, with characteristic British diplo- 
macy, naively said: 

All that is desired now is to defend Egypt 
against attack and to keep the internal adminis- 



tration running smoothly. Other questions can 
wait until peace is restored as Lord Cromer im- 
plies in the letter we publish today. * * It 
is purely a practical administrative step, dictated 
by the appearance of Turkey as a belligerent. 

It will be noted that the seizure was sought to be 
justified only as a protection to Egypt against Turkish 
aggression. The truth is that under the guise of a 
"protectorate" Great Britain seized Egypt, and swept 
away every vestige of Egyptian freedom and inde- 
pendence. But the people of Egypt did not realize at 
that time the full meaning of this action on the part of 
Great Britain. They were told that it was a step 
toward the independence of Egypt. His Majesty, King 
George, in a letter to the Sultan whom he had ap- 
pointed to rule over Egypt, which letter was widely 
circulated throughout Egypt, and was published in 
the London Times of date December 21st, 1914, said: 

* * * I feel convinced that you will be able, 
with the co-operation of your ministers and the 
protectorate of Great Britain, to overcome all in- 
fluences which are seeking to destroy the inde- 
pendence of Egypt. (Italics ours.) 

This seizure of Egypt being announced at the time 
as merely temporary, as a war measure, was assumed 
by the Egyptians to be such. The Egyptian troops 
fought courageously on the side of the Allies to make, 
as they believed, the world safe for democracy and 
for the right of national self-determination in all peo- 
ples. 

When it came to making the terms of peace and the 
formation of a League of Nations, the Egyptian peo- 
ple naturally concluded, since under the League of Na- 
tions they would be preserved from external aggres- 



sion, that the "protectorate" of Great Britain, the 
alleged purpose of which was to preserve Egypt from 
external aggression, would be removed. But they were 
doomed to disappointment. England apparently not 
only refuses to give up Egypt, but asks the other na- 
tions to endorse and glorify her wrongful holding of 
Egypt. 

If there should be a League of Nations, to give the 
nations some remedy, other than war, to settle their 
disputes and to preserve the right of self-determination 
in small nations, and to prevent one nation from seizing 
another, by what process of reasoning can it be as- 
sumed, that in the annex to the very Treaty creating 
a League of Nations for the purpose indicated, there 
should be a recognition of the British title to Egypt, 
which is utterly inconsistent with the principles of the 
League of Nations and is based upon the doctrine of 
military might, not upon the principles of justice and 
right. 

II. 

The original occupation of Egypt by Great Britain was 
under solemn promise to Egypt and to the world that it 
would be only temporary. 

Egypt is one compact whole, one nation, one lan- 
guage; the character of her people, their conduct, their 
habits, their sympathies and inclinations are the same 
throughout that country. From her geographical sit- 
uation, however, Egypt has attracted the attention of 
the colonizing powers more perhaps than any other 
country in the world. Lying between South Africa and 
the Mediterranean as between also the eastern and 
western worlds, Egypt is not only the key to England's 
position in her vast project of colonization, but she is 



moreover an important factor internationally in the 
affairs of practically every European, Asiatic or 
American country. 

The Egyptians are liberty-loving, peaceful people. 
They have not interfered with other nations. Egypt 
has had a well-defined national boundary for more 
than a thousand years, but Egypt has never attempted 
to destroy the liberties of other peoples. "While 
Egypt has not transgressed against other nations, 
Egypt has. been the subject of many transgressions 
on the part of other nations. The eyes of the 
covetous rulers of the earth have always been upon 
Egypt and for illustration we need go no further back 
in history than Caesar and come up from Napoleon to 
Great Britain. 

Egypt is a country of immense wealth. She has mil- 
lions of acres of agricultural land, greater in value 
per acre, and in producing power, than the richest 
farming land in the State of Illinois. 

The seizure of Egypt by Great Britain adds to Brit- 
ain's enormous acquisitions an area of 350,000 square 
miles and a population of 13,000,000 people. The value 
of the natural resources so seized is beyond computa- 
tion. 

In 1798 the French, under Napoleon, invaded Egypt. 
In 1801 the French were expelled from that country 
by the Turks, aided by Great Britain. In 1807 Great 
Britain attempted to invade Egypt but was ejected by 
the Egyptian army. Egypt continued to be a nominal 
Turkish province until 1831 when war broke out be- 
tween Egypt and Turkey, and the Egyptian armies 
were victorious. Constantinople would have fallen to 
the Egyptians but the great Powers interfered in order 
to preserve the "balance of power", and the Egyptians 
were compelled to give up the full fruits of their vic- 
tories. 



By the Treaty of London of 1840 and 1841, Egypt 
became autonomous, subject only to an annual tribute 
to Turkey of about $3,500,000. The title of its ruler 
meant "Sovereign" or "King" without qualification. 
The Government of Egypt could maintain an army, 
contract loans and make new political conventions 
with foreign powers. For all practical purposes Egypt 
was independent in law and in fact. 

Things continued to run smoothly until the time of 
the Khedive Ismail in 1863 to 1879. He was an ex- 
travagant promoter by nature and was surrounded by 
European usurers who were ready to lend him money 
at ruinous interest. In seven years Ismail raised the 
debt of the country from 3,292,000 pounds to 94,110,000 
pounds. This debt was contracted, in large measure, 
through the building of the Suez canal, which was be- 
gun under French auspices, but of which Great Britain 
later secured control. The debt owing to Europeans 
offered the opportunity or excuse for the interference 
by England and other nations in the affairs of Egypt, 
whereby there was a supervision of the revenues by the 
agents of Great Britain, for the ostensible purpose of 
collecting the debts contracted by Ismail. Great Britain 
attempted not only financial control but political con- 
trol as well. In September, 1881, a revolution broke 
out in Cairo, which had for its chief object the emanci- 
pation of Egypt from European influences. 

In May, 1882, a British fleet appeared before Alex- 
andria. In June, 1882, a serious disturbance took place 
m Alexandria and a number of Europeans were killed 
On July 11th and 12th, 1882, Alexandria was bombard- 
ed by the British fleet and British, soldiers began to 
occupy Egypt. Great Britain pledged the Egyptian 
Government and the world that this occupation would 
be only temporary. The solemn pledges to this effect 



8 



made by England are evidenced by the following docu- 
ments : 

1. Lord Granville's dispatch, November 4th, 1881: 
Egypt No. 1 (1882), pp. 2, 3, said: 

The policy of H. M.'s Government toward Egypt 
has no other aim than the prosperity of the conn- 
try, and its full enjoyment of that liberty which it 
has obtained under successive firmans of the Sul- 
tan. * * * It cannot be too clearly understood 
that England desires no partisan Ministry in 
Egypt. In the opinion of H. M.'s Government a 
partisan Ministry founded on the support of a for- 
eign power, or upon the personal influence of a for- 
eign diplomatic agent, is neither calculated to be of 
service to the country it administers, nor to that in 
whose interest it is supposed to be maintained. 

2. In the Protocol signed by Lord Duff erin, together 
with the representatives of the five other great Powers, 
June 25th, 1882: Egypt No. 17 (1882), p. 33, it' was 
provided : 

The Government represented by the undersigned 
engage themselves, in any arrangement which may 
be made in consequence of their concerted action 
for the regulation of the affairs of Egypt, not to 
seek any territorial advantage, nor any concession 
of any exclusive privilege, nor any commercial ad- 
vantage for their subjects other than those which 
any other nation can equally obtain. (Italics ours.) 

3. Sir Beauchamp Seymour, in a communication to 
Khedive Tewfik, Alexandria, July 26th, 1882, published 
in the Official Journal of July 28th, 1882, said : 

I, admiral commanding the British fleet, think 
it opportune to confirm without delay once more 



9 

to your Highness that the Government of Great 
Britain has no intention of making the conquest 
of Egypt, nor of injuring in any way the religion 
and liberties of the Egyptians. It has for its 
sole object to protect your Highness and the Egyp- 
tian people against rebels. (Italics ours.) 

4. Sir Charles Dilke, in the House of Commons, 
July 25th, 1882, said : 

It is the desire of H. M.'s Government, after re- 
lieving Egypt from military tyranny, to leave the 
people to manage their own affairs. * * * We 
believe that it is better for the interests of their 
country, as well as for the interests of Egypt, that 
Egypt should be governed by liberal institutions 
rather than by a despotic rule. * * * We do 
not wish to impose on Egypt institutions of our 
own choice, but rather to leave the choice of Egypt 
free. * * It is the honorable duty of this 

country to be true to the principles of free insti- 
tutions, which are our glory. (Italics ours.) 

5. The Rt. Honorable Mr. W. E. Gladstone, in the 
House of Commons, August 10th, 1882, said: 

I can go so far as to answer the honourable gen- 
tleman when he asks me whether we contemplate 
an indefinite occupation of Egypt. Undoubtedly 
of all things in the world, that is a thing which we 
are not going to do. It would be absolutely at 
variance with all the principles and views of 
H. M.'s Government, and the pledges they have 
given to Europe and with the views I may say of 
Europe itself. (Italics ours.) 

6. Lord Dufferin's despatch, December 19th, 1882: 
Egypt No. 2 (1883), p. 30, stated: 



10 

In talking to the various persons who have made 
inquiries as to my views on the Egyptian question 
I have stated that we have not the least intention 
of preserving the authority which has thus re- 
verted to us. * * * It was our intention so to con- 
duct our relations with the Egyptian people that 
vthey should naturally regard us as their best 
friends and counselors, but that we did not pro- 
pose upon that account arbitrarily to impose our 
views upon them or to hold them in an irritating 
tutelage. (Italics ours.) 

7. Lord Granville, December 29th, 1882: Egypt 
No. 2 (1882), p. 33, officially stated: 

You should intimate to the Egyptian Govern- 
ment that it is the desire of H. M.'s Government to 
withdraw the troops from Egypt as soon as cir- 
cumstances permit, that such withdrawal will prob- 
ably be effected from time to time as the security 
of the country will allow it, and that H. M.'s Gov- 
ernment hope that the time will be very short dur- 
ing which the full number of the present force will 
be maintained. (Italics ours.) 

8. Lord Dufferin's despatch, February 6th, 1883: 
Egypt No. 6 (1883), pp. 41, 43, stated: 

The territory of the Khedive has been recog- 
nized as lying outside the sphere of European 
warfare and international jealousies. * * * 

The Valley of the Nile could not be adminis- 
tered from London. An attempt upon our part 
to engage in such an undertaking would at once 
render us objects of hatred and suspicion to its 
inhabitants. Cairo would become a focus of for- 
eign intrigue and conspiracy against us, and we 



11 

should soon find ourselves forced either to aban- 
don our pretensions under discreditable condi- 
tions or embark upon the experiment of a com- 
plete acquisition of the country. 

9. Again, at page 83, Lord Dufferin said: 

Had I been commissioned to place affairs in 
Egypt on the footing of an Indian subject State 
the outlook would have been different. The mas- 
terful hand of a Resident would have quickly 
bent everything to his will, and in the space of 
five years we should have greatly added to the 
material wealth and well-being of the country. 
But the Egyptians would have justly con- 
sidered these advantages as dearly purchased at 
the expense of their domestic independence. More- 
over, H. M.'s Government have pronounced 
against such an alternative. (Italics ours.) 

10. Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons, Au- 
gust 6, 1883, said: 

The other powers of Europe * * * are we \\ 
aware of the general intentions entertained by the 
British Government's intentions which may be sub- 
ject, of course, to due consideration of the state of 
circumstances, but conceived and held to be in the 
nature not only of information, but of a pledge or 
engagement. (Italics ours.) 

11. Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons, Au- 
gust 9, 1883, said : 

The uncertainty there may be in some portion of 
the public mind has reference to those desires 



12 

which tend towards the permanent occupation of 
Egypt and its incorporation in this Empire. This 
is a consummation to which we are resolutely op- 
posed, and which we will have nothing to do with 
bringing about. We are against this doctrine of 
annexation; we are against everything that re- 
sembles or approaches it; and we are against all 
language that tends to bring about its expectation. 
We are against it on the ground of the interests 
of England; we are against it on the ground of 
our duty to Egypt; we are against it on the ground 
of the specific and solemn pledges given to the 
iv o rid in the most solemn manner and under the 
most critical circumstances, pledges which have 
earned for us the confidence of Europe at large 
during the course of difficult and delicate opera- 
tions, and which, if one pledge can be more solemn 
and sacred than another, special sacredness in this 
case binds us to observe. We are also sensible 
that occupation prolonged beyond a certain point 
may tend to annexation, and consequently it is our 
object to take the greatest care that the occupa- 
tion does not gradually take a permanent char- 
acter. (Italics ours.) 

12. Lord Granville's despatch, June 16, 1884: 
Egypt No. 23 (1884), p. 13, stated: 

H. M.'s Government * * * are willing that 
the withdrawal of the troops shall take place at 
the beginning of the year 1888, provided that the 
Powers are then of opinion that such withdrawal 
can take place without risk to peace and order. 

13. Lord Derby in the House of Lords, February 
26, 1885, said: 

From the first we have steadily kept in view the 
fact that our occupation was temporary and pro- 



13 



visional only. * * * yy e d not propose to 
keep Egypt permanently. * * * On that point 
we are pledged to this country and to Europe; 
and if a contrary policy is adopted it will not be 
by us. (Italics ours.) 

14. Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords, June 10, 
1887, said: 

It was not open to us to assume the protectorate 
of Egypt, because H. M.'s Government have again 
and again pledged themselves that they would not 
do so. * My noble friend has dwelt upon 

that pledge, and he does us no more than justice 
when he expresses his opinion that it is a pledge 
which has been constantly present to our minds. 
It was undoubtedly the fact that our pres- 
ence in Egypt, unrecognized by any convention 
* * * gave the subjects of the Sultan cause for 
a suspicion which we did not deserve. (Italics 
ours.) 

15. Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords, August 
12, 1889, said: 

When my noble friend * * * as k s us to con- 
vert ourselves from guardians into proprietors 
and to declare our stay in Egypt per- 
manent * * * I must say I think my noble 
friend pays an insufficient regard to the sanctity 
of the obligations which the Government of the 
Queen have undertaken and by which they are 
bound to abide. In such a matter we have not to 
consider what is the most convenient or what is 
the more profitable course ; we have to consider the 
course to which we are bound by our own obliga- 
tions and by European law. (Italics ours.) 



14 

16. Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons, May 
1, 1893, said: 

I cannot do otherwise than express my general 
concurrence * * that the occupation of 

Egypt is in the nature of a burden and difficulty, 
and that the permanent occupation of that country 
would not be agreeable to our traditional policy, 
and that it would not be consistent with our good 
faith towards the Suzerain Power, while it would 
be contrary to the laws of Europe * * * I cer- 
tainly shall not set up the doctrine that we have 
discovered a duty which enables us to set aside the 
pledges into which we have so freely entered. 
* * * The thing we cannot do with perfect 
honour is either to deny that we are under engage- 
ments which preclude the idea of an indefinite oc- 
cupation, or so to construe that indefinite occupa- 
tion as to hamper the engagements that we are 
under by collateral consideration. (Italics ours.) 

17. The text of the Anglo-French Agreement of 
April 8, 1904, provides: 

The Government of H. Majesty declares that it 
has no intention of altering the policital status of 
Egypt. 

18. Lord Cromer's Report, March 3, .1907: Egypt 
No. 1 (1907), p. -2, stated: 

There are insuperable objections to the as- 
sumption of a British Protectorate over Egypt. 
Tt would involve a change in the political status of 
the country. Now, in Art. I of the Anglo-French 
Agreement of the 8th of April, 1904, the British 
Government have explicitly declared that they 



15 

have no intention of altering the political status 
of Egypt. 

19. In an interview with Dr. Nimr, Editor of the 
"Mokattam", October 24, 1908, acknowledged as of- 
ficial by Sir E. Grey in the House of Commons, Sir 
Eldon Gorst said: 

It has been said that Great Britain proposes 
shortly to proclaim the protectorate or the an- 
nexation of Egypt to the British Empire. Will Sir 
Eldon Gorst permit me to ask him whether this 
rumor is well founded or not? 

Sir Eldon Gorst answered: 

The rumor has no foundation and you may con- 
tradict it categorically. Great Britain has engaged 
herself by official agreements with Turkey and the 
European Powers to respect the suzerainty of the 
Sultan in Egypt. She will keep her engagements, 
which, moreover, she reiterated in 1904 at the time 
of the conclusion of the Anglo-French Agreement. 
England stipulated in that Agreement that she has 
no intention to change the political situation in 
Egypt. Neither the people nor the Government 
wish to rid themselves of these engagements. 
(Italics ours.) 

20. Sir Eldon Gorst 's Report, March 27, 1909: 
Egypt No. 1 (1909), p. 1, stated: 

There exists among the better-educated sections 
of society a limited but gradually increasing class 
which interests itself in matters pertaining to the 
government and administration of the country. 
This class aspires quite rightly to help in bringing 
about the day when Egypt will be able to govern 



16 

herself without outside assistance. This is also 
the end to which British policy is directed, and 
there need be no antagonism of principle between 
the Egyptian and English reforming elements. 

21. In the same report, at page 48, Sir Eldon Gorst 
said: 

Since the commencement of the occupation the 
policy approved by the British Government has 
never varied, and its fundamental idea has been to 
prepare the Egyptians for self-government, while 
helping them in the meantime to enjoy the benefit 
of good government. 

22. Sir Eldon Gorst 's Report, March 26, 1910: 
Egypt No. 1 (1910), p. 51, stated: 

British policy in Egypt in no way differs from 
that followed by Great Britain all over the world 
towards countries under her influence, namely, to 
place before all else the welfare of their popula- 
tions. 

23. Sir Edward Grey, in the House of Commons, 
August, 1914, said : 

England stretches out her hand to any nation 
whose safety or independence may be threatened 
or compromised by any aggressor. 

24. Former Premier Balfour, speaking for the 
Government at Guildhall on November 19, 1914, de- 
clared : 

We fight not for ourselves alone, but for civi- 
lization drawn to the cause of small states, the 



17 

cause of all those countries which desire to de- 
velop their own civilization in their own way, 
following their own ideals without interference 
from any insolent and unauthorized aggressor. 

25. Premier Asquith, speaking at Guildhall, No- 
vember 9, 1915, asserted : 

We shall not pause or falter until we have 
secured for the smaller states their charter of 
independence and for the world at large its final 
emancipation from the reign of force. 

26. And again Premier Asquith, on November - 9, 
1916, declared: 

This is a war among other things — perhaps 
I may say primarily — a war for the emancipation 
of the smaller states. * * * Peace when it 
comes, must be such as will build upon a sure and 
stable foundation the security of the weak, the 
liberties of Europe and a free future for the 
world. 

27. Premier Lloyd George, on June 29, 1917, said : 

In my judgment this war will come to an 
end when the Allied Powers have reached the 
aims which they set out to attain when they ac- 
cepted the challenge thrown down by Germany 
to civilization. 

28. Mr. Asquith, in the House of Commons, on De- 
cember 20, 1917, said: 

We ought to make it increasingly clear by 
every possible means that the only ends we are 
fighting for are liberty and justice for the whole 
world, through a confederation of great and small 
states, all to possess equal rights. A league of 
nations is the ideal for which we are fighting and 



18 



we shall continue fighting for it with a clear con- 
science, clean hands and an unwavering heart. 
(Italics ours.) 

III. 

But the War Gave an Excuse for Great Britain to Break Her 
Plighted Word. 

In an official report of date November 1, 1914, it 
was stated: 

His Imperial Majesty the Sultan of Turkey has 
forwarded a circular to the great powers directing 
their attention to the fact that the presence of the 
English troops in Egypt does not permit him to 
exercise his suzerain rights. Acting upon this 
basis, the Khedive of Egypt, Abbas II, has also 
invited the English government to withdraw her 
troops from his country. 

Again, on November 2, 1914, the report stated: 

The Turkish Ambassador at London, Tewfik 
Pascha, has presented to the Foreign office an 
Ultimatum from the Khedive of Egypt, demanding 
the immediate evacuation of Egypt by the English 
troops. 

And so on December 18, 1914, England proclaimed 
the removal by her of the lawful Khedive of Egypt, 
and the appointment by England of Prince Hussein, 
uncle of the Khedive, as Sultan to the Throne. Eng- 
land's Sultan of Egypt is maintained on the Throne 
of. Egypt today, against the will of the Egyptian 
people, by the power of England's military forces. 

This act was represented at the time to be only a 
war measure, and was coupled with an assurance of 



19 



independence at the end of the war. The protectorate 
proclaimed at the same time over Egypt by Great 
Britain was understood by the Egyptian people to Be 
merely for the period of the war and as a step toward 
their absolute independence should the war end in 
victory for the Allies. 

IV. 

Now the war is over. Shall Egypt be handed over to 
Great Britain as spoils of war contrary to the Declarations 
in the Covenant of the League of Nations and of the prin- 
ciples for which America fought? 

When Great Britain's pledges of altruism are set 
down side by side, with the treatment of Egypt by 
Great Britain, the result is awesome to the democratic 
mind. Of all the countries at war the aims and mo- 
tives of Great Britain and America were stated to the 
world with the greatest clarity and in the most im- 
pressive way. 

On November 10, 1914, Mr. Lloyd George, in a speech 
called the world to witness the utter unselfishness of 
Great Britain in the war. "As the Lord liveth," he 
declared, "England does not seek a yard of territory." 
"We are in this war," he said, "from motives of 
purest chivalry, to defend the weak." 

On February 27th, 1915, Premier Lloyd George as- 
serted with dramatic fervor that the suggestion that 
England desired "territorial or other aggrandize- 
ment" was an infamous lie of the enemy. 

Aside from "making the world safe for democ- 
racy", the reasons given for America's entrance into 
the war were, "For the right of all who submit to 
authority to have a voice in their own government," 
and ' ' for the rights and liberties of small nations. ' ' 



20 



President Wilson, in his great address at Mt. Ver- 
non, the home of Washington, on July 4, 1918, said : 

There can be but one issue. The settlement 
must be final. There can be no compromise. No 
half-way decision would be tolerable. No half- 
way decision is conceivable. These are the ends 
for which the associated peoples of the world are 
fighting, and which must be conceded them be- 
fore there can be peace. * * * The settlement 
of every question, whether of territory, or sov- 
ereignty, or economic arrangement, or of polit- 
ical relationship upon the basis of the free ac- 
ceptance of that settlement by the people imme- 
diately concerned and not upon the basis of the 
material interest or advantage of any other na- 
tion or people ivhich may desire a different set- 
tlement for the sake of its own influence or mas- 
tery. * * * What we seek is the reign of law 
based upon the consent of the governed and sus- 
tained by the organized opinion of mankind. 
(Italics ours.) 

Shall Egypt, without the consent of the Egyptians, 
be turned over to England for the sake of England's 
influence or mastery! 

In the 14 points advanced by President Wilson, we 
find the following pertinent and applicable provi- 
sions : 

Point 14. A general association of nations must 
be formed under specific covenants for the pur- 
pose of affording mutual guarantees of political 
independence and territorial integrity to great 
and small states alike. (Italics ours.) 

This principle applied to Egypt would lead to a 
conclusion directly opposite from the endorsement of 



21 



the British seizure and continued holding of Egypt and 
destruction of Egypt's independence. 

Applying the principle of the Seventh Point to 
Egypt and only substituting the word ''Egypt" for 
"Belgium", the Seventh Point would read: 

Egypt, the whole world will agree, must be 
evacuated and restored, without any attempt to 
limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common 
with all other free nations. No other single act 
will serve as this will serve to restore confidence 
among the nations in the laws which they have 
themselves set and determined for the govern- 
ment of their relations with one another. With- 
out this healing act the whole structure and 
validity of international law is forever impaired. 
(Italics ours.) 

How can it be justly said that Egypt is outside the 
realm of the principles of the Fourteen Points, and 
that England may deny the right of self-determina- 
tion to Egypt! If Great Britain's holding of Egypt 
by military force should be endorsed and ratified by 
the very instrument which condemns that character 
of international aggression, would not the "whole 
structure and validity of international law" be forever 
impaired? Would not the Covenant as to the rights 
of all nations to self-determination and to freedom 
from aggressions by other nations be made a hollow 
mockery! Shall the principles of democracy, so beau- 
tifully set forth in the League of Nations Covenant, 
be repudiated in section 6 of the annex to the Treaty? 

Great Britain, in violation of her solemn pledges to 
Egypt, and to the world, declared a "protectorate" 
over Egypt, but implied it was only for the period of 
the war, and to be terminated at the close of hostilities. 



22 



Relying upon the honor of Great Britain, the Egyp- 
tian people entered the war against the Central Powers. 
The entire resources of Egypt were placed at the 
disposal of the Allies; more than one million Egyp- 
tians served on the Eastern Egyptian frontier. 
General Allenby, at Heliopolis, in a speech to the Y. 
M. C. A., stated that Egypt was largely responsible for 
the success of the Allies in Palestine and Syria. Not- 
withstanding this, Great Britain is holding Egypt as 
a subject and conquered nation. Would it not be an 
act of insincerity to declare in one breath the right 
of self-determination in the peoples of all nations ; the 
right of the people of each nation to work out their 
own destiny unrestrained and unrestricted by outside 
force ; and in the next breath approve the assumption 
of sovereignty over Egypt by Great Britain, contrary 
to the will and desires of the Egyptians, and in viola- 
tion of every principle of right and justice? 

If Great Britain merely intends to keep Egypt until 
through the creation of the League of Nations Egypt 
shall be saved from outside aggression, that would be 
one thing; but if that were the intention of Great 
Britain, why should she ask that the seizure and hold- 
ing of Egypt by her be recognized and approved by 
the other nations? Is it not apparent that the purpose 
of Great Britain is to keep Egypt permanently as a 
part of her dominions and to do this if possible with 
the approval of the civilized nations of the world? 

The principles of the League of Nations supercede 
the old idea of balance of power and take away any 
excuse Great Britain could give for the forcible hold- 
ing of Egypt from that standpoint. Moreover, Great 
Britain could not justly claim that under the League 
of Nations, as provided for in the Covenant, she 
should hold Egypt to protect Egypt against external 



23 



aggression, which was the reason given by the London 
Times for the seizure of Egypt. 

Clearly, if the principles of the Covenant of the 
League of Nations are to be made impartially effec- 
tive, the status of Egypt should be declared to be a 
matter of adjustment by the League of Nations-, when 
the League of Nations shall have been formed and in 
active operation. 

V. 

Great Britain Has No Title to Permanently Hold Egypt. 

What would be thought of the United States if the 
United States should seize and hold some nation by 
such methods as England seized and continues to hold 
Egypt? Can England retain Egypt and the respect 
of mankind in this era of the rights of men and of 
nations? What title can England show to Egypt? 
Neither discovery, purchase nor lawful conquest, but 
occupation to collect debts with solemn promises to 
the Egyptians and to the world to withdraw after a 
temporary occupation; seizure of Egypt as a war 
measure by reason of the appearance of Turkey as a 
combatant. Now that the war is over and a League 
of Nations is to be established and government is to 
be based upon the consent of the governed, shall the 
title of seizing nations to their plunder be recognized? 
If so, the war will have failed of its highest purpose 
and victory will have been robbed of her most precious 
jewel. 

The League of Nations, we are told, would apply 
the same principles between nations that have long 
been applied between individuals by municipal law. 

If an individual were to forcibly intrude into the 
home of another for the ostensible purpose of collect- 
ing a debt and then should assume proprietorship and 



24 



direction over the entire household upon the theory 
that it is best for the occupants of the house, and then 
should ask that his title to dominion and control of 
the house be recognized, he would, under municipal 
law, land in jail as a trespasser. 

If, under the League of Nations, the same princi- 
ples are to be applied between nations, Great Britain 
would have to get out of the land of Egypt, where she 
is a trespasser by force and without title. 

The giving of Shantung to Japan (Section 8 of an- 
nex to Treaty) has created bitter opposition. By this 
section, Shantung is turned over to Japan to be gov- 
erned by Japan without the consent of the governed. 

But Japan has some title to Shantung, while Great 
Britain has no title to Egypt. The Shantung rights 
■ were conferred upon Germany by China, under duress 
though it may be, and by the Treaty in question Japan 
succeeds to Germany's rights, titles and privileges in 
Shantung- — whatever they may be. 

Great Britain holds Egypt not by right of any title, 
but by might of military forces. 

The Government of Japan has announced that Japan 
will not hold Shantung in violation of the rights of 
the people there and that she will turn Shantung back 
to China. There has been no announcement that Great 
Britain will be as unselfish as to Egypt. Indeed, Great 
Britain's occupation of Egypt under pretence of col- 
lecting debts or protecting the Egyptian Government 
from "rebels" and continued occupation in violation 
of her promises to withdraw and the later seizure and 
present holding of Egypt in violation of the rights 
of the people of Egypt do not lend encouragement to 
the hope that Great Britain will act unselfishly toward 
Egypt. 

At the beginning of the war Egypt was in the sense 
of international law independent, save for the nominal 



25 



sovereignty of Turkey. When Egypt declared war 
against Turkey this bond was broken and ipso facto 
in the legal sense, Egypt became independent; and 
with the victory of the Allies, that independence should 
have been acknowledged. Instead, Great Britain is 
today, in violation of her pledges, holding Egypt in 
subjection by military might. 

VI. 
Shall Might or Right Be Upheld? 

England's seizure and continued holding of Egypt, 
not by right, but by might, is out of keeping with the 
world's new temper. Only by the exercise of the gospel 
of force can the holding of Egypt be maintained. The 
cruel disappointment of the Egyptians who fought so 
bravely with the Allies to overthrow autocracy and to 
sustain democracy throughout the world only to be 
denied the things for which they and America fought, 
and to be placed under the heel of the military autoc- 
racy of England, means bitterness that ill accords with 
that spirit of the League of Nations which speaks for 
right and justice to all people and that no people shall 
be governed without their consent. 

The inevitable outcome is chronicled in the daily 
press. For instance, the following is an eight column, 
first page, two inch double heading to an Associated 
Press dispatch in the St. Louis Republic of July 25th, 
1919: 

800 EGYPTIANS DIE, 1,600 WOUNDED, WHEN 
BRITISH PUT DOWN REVOLUTION. 

Is there any wonder? Would not Americans fight 
under the same circumstances? Would not English- 
men do the same? Shall the same instrument guar- 
anteeing the right of self-deterimnation to the people 



26 



of all nations approve the denial of self-determination 
to Egypt? Is the world to continue to be ruled by 
might, or are we really in the dawn of a new day when 
right and justice shall reign throughout the earth"? 

VII. 
Right Does Not Fear Light and Truth. 

The Egyptians fought on the side of the Allies, be- 
lieving that they were fighting for the right of self- 
determination and for the principle that no people 
should be governed without their consent. When the 
armistice was signed the Egyptians rejoiced because 
they believed their time for deliverance was near. 
They did not doubt they would be given the right of 
self-determination and that the time of their being 
governed without their consent was about to end. 

The Legislative Assembly of Egypt, a majority of 
which is elected by the people of Egypt, and other 
institutions representing the people of Egypt, selected 
a commission to attend the Peace Conference at Paris, 
and to present the case of Egypt there. This com- 
mission is headed by Said Pasha Zaghlul as chairman. 
He is the Vice President of the Egyptian Assembly, 
the highest office in Egypt, elected by the people of 
Egypt. He was formerly Minister of Justice of Egypt, 
and before that was Minister of Education. On the 
commission, in addition, are Mahmoud Pasha and Dr. 
Afifi, both of whom are leading citizens of Egypt. This 
commission was appointed to go to Paris, expecting a 
League of Nations to be formed, and that Egypt would 
be a part of it. Their faith in the altruism of Great 
Britain was rudely shattered. Four members of the 
commission were arrested, deported to Malta and in- 
terned by order of the British Government. The only 
charge against them was that they favored self-deter- 



27 



mination for Egypt. When this astounding news 
reached Egypt the indignation was intense. National 
self-determination demonstrations were held. Great 
Britain's answer was to fire machine guns into the 
crowds of unarmed and peaceful demonstrants, killing 
about a thousand and wounding vastly more. Under 
the British "protectorate" in Egypt today it is a 
crime to speak for Egyptian liberty. 

General Allenby, it is said, advised the British Gov- 
ernment that it would be best to permit the commis- 
sion to go to France. When the members of the com- 
mission reached Paris, they were horrified to learn 
that a recognition of England's "protectorate" over 
Egypt had been written into the annex to the Treaty. 
The commission requested a hearing, but it was re- 
fused them. The members of the commission called 
upon the American Consul and asked the privilege of 
sending a representative to America in order that 
their story might be told in the land of the free. The 
Consul at first informed them as a matter of course 
their request would be granted. But they were put off 
from time to time until finally the British, as well as 
the American Consul, advised them that they would 
not be allowed to come to America nor to send a repre- 
sentative to America. The American State Department 
however ordered the passports issued. 

VIII. 

Conclusion. 

In behalf of this commission, and as counsel for the 
commission, we ask that Section 6, Article 147 to 154, 
of the annex to the Versailles Treaty clearly state that 
the status of Egypt shall be within the jurisdiction of 
the Council of the League of Nations. 

The protectorate in Great Britain over Egypt re- 
ferred to in Article 147 of the Treaty should be declared 
to be merely a means through which the nominal suzer- 



28 

ainty of Turkey over Egypt shall be transferred to the 
Egyptian people, and should not be construed as a 
recognition by the United States in Great Britain of 
any sovereign rights over the Egyptian people, or as 
depriving the people of Egypt of any of their rights of 
self-government. 

Whether Egypt should be turned over to Great 
Britain as spoils of war cannot be an internal ques- 
tion unless it be made so by the Treaty itself fixing 
the status of Egypt as internal to Great Britain. 

America has always been the refuge of the oppressed 
of every land, and freedom of discussion of complaints 
of aggression has been a matter of course. The con- 
demnation of Egypt, without a hearing, to British 
bondage and subjection would mean continued mowing 
down by British guns of these liberty-seeking people 
who fought with America to make the world safe from 
military autocracy. 

If, on the other hand, the Egyptians are assured of 
a hearing of their case by the Council of the League 
of Nations, or some international tribunal, there would, 
no doubt, be peace and quiet in Egypt, in the knowl- 
edge that an international forum will be open to them 
to determine their status and for the adjustment of 
their grievances. Thus the League of Nations will have 
justified one of the sublime purposes of its conception 
in affording a remedy to oppressed nations and en- 
abling them to obtain an adjudication of their right to 
national self-determination by appealing to justice 
rather than to force. 

Respectfully submitted, 

JOSEPH W. FOLK, 

Counsel for the Egyptian Delegation 
Selected by the Legislative As- 
sembly of Egypt and other repre- 
sentative Egyptian Institutions. 



29 

APPENDIX. 

To the English Adviser to the Egyptian Ministry of 
Justice. From W. E. Makram a prominent 
Egyptian: 

Deae Sik: 

^ And it is fit that our old Egypt, the cradle 
of all civilization, should again be the foremost among 
Oriental Nations to digest and proclaim the ideas 
which took their first nourishment on her soil. That 
old and ever new cry of liberty is again being sounded 
in the Nile Valley, and the old spark which centuries 
of grinding tyranny has not been able to put out is 
still flickering in the hearts of our men, aye, and our 
women, too. Any impartial observer who has had an 
opportunity of witnessing at close quarters the dem- 
onstrations of our crowd must have felt the overpower- 
ing influence of the ideal that was carrying them away 
into realms hitherto unexplored and undreamt of. 
Forty days of pure idealism have transformed the na- 
tion beyond recognition, sinking into oblivion those 
two great curses of the East, religious and sexual 
prejudices, thus accomplishing a task which forty 
years of material progress have failed to realize. Not 
that such progress is without value, even morally, 
but I claim that the country has reached a point in 
her development when only the moral lever of liberty 
and self-realization can uplift her to a higher standard 
of civilization and progress. 

We are merely passing through a stage of political 
growth which the happier people of Europe have al- 
ready traversed. We feel that we have reached a state 
of maturity when we can do without external props, 



30 

wh^n such props will, in all probability, be a hindrance 
to us in our march towards our national destinies. 

But this is merely argumentative, the truth being 
that Egypt has, in fact, attained a degree of civiliza- 
tion compatible with the much-coveted book of liberty 
and independence, and is not, in this respect, inferior 
to several small states for whose liberty England has, 
many a time, shed her best blood. However, the surest 
criterion of our being worthy of independence is that 
we are claiming it. In saying this I am only quoting 
a famous English writer who said that the one gauge of 
a nation's aptitude for constitutional government is 
the people's claiming it. Now there does not seem 
to be any room for doubt that the whole Egyptian 
people has, with a unity of purpose almost unprece- 
dented in history, claimed for itself independence, and 
I hate to go into argument over this point, the more so 
I feel sure that you yourself will agree with me that 
the movement as a whole is not due either to agitation 
or intimidation, but is a spontaneous, irresistible move- 
ment of a people conscious of its dawning individual- 
ity. * * * 

I have so far confined myself to generalizations, but 
I can't help dealing specifically with one point, namely, 
why the Egyptians object to a protectorate. ( Our ob- 
jections may be resumed in a few words : A protector- 
ate is a permanent link of subordination, involving 
our indefinite subjection to British rule, control of 
guardianship, as one may choose to term it. At best, 
a protectorate is a dependent State and its citizens 
are protected subjects of a Foreign Nation. Thus, 
whilst losing their own personality, they don't acquire 
that of the protecting State. 



31 



Assuming for the sake of argument that Egypt is 
still, in legal parlance, an infant requiring guardian- 
ship, such guardianship must needs come to an end on 
maturity, whereas a protectorate is presumably indefi- 
nite and cannot be shaken off without a revolution or 
some such exceptional measure. I have heard it argued 
by Englishmen that a protectorate may, in the long 
run, be more of a privilege than a burden, but such 
platonic relations do not, unfortunately, come within 
the domain of practical politics, and the "quid pro 
quo" will doubtless remain as ever the basic rule of 
international relations. Not that such a rule is essen- 
tially unfair, but applied as between governor and 
governed, especially when of different races, the bur- 
den will ever outweigh the advantages, were it only for 
the loss of independence which nothing can compensate. 

I have been assuming a protectorate of the ideal 
type, but it should be remembered that a protectorate 
is a treaty or a de facto relationship between two un- 
equals and that the stronger is apt — such is the na- 
ture of men and of things — to appropriate for himself 
the "par leonina". Indeed, so far, a protectorate has 
meant practical annexation and has only been applied 
to the lower grades of humanity. That Egypt, who 
occupied the position of a practically independent 
State, both in fact and in law, should be condemned 
to this humiliating form of subordination is certainly 
a grievous, pitiful condition for a nation desirous of 
life and progress. * * * Pray excuse my bitterness. 
One cannot help feeling bitter at the gloomy prospect 
that is facing us, and I mean this account to portray 
as faithfully as possible the feelings which are animat- 
ing most Egyptians at the present juncture. * * * 

The truth is that a protectorate is not compatible 
with the degree of civilization we have attained or 



32 



are hoping to attain with England's liberal traditions 
and her present temper. And with the idea of a 
League of Nations which the whole world is anxious 
to realize. * * * I therefore appeal to you, sir, as 
a representative of free England to help us to realize 
our national asqirations. Our independence cannot 
be prejudicial to anybody, much less to the British 
Empire, to whom we are willing to give all necessary 
guarantees and privileges provided they do not in- 
trench upon our independence and self-respect as a 
nation, however humble. The new idea of a League 
of Nations, providing as it does or will all the neces- 
sary guarantees against aggressive or reactionaries 
movements will greatly facilitate the solution of the 
Egyptian question and satisfy all parties concerned. 

What is important, sir, is the attitude with which to 
approach the problem. We claim that liberal England, 
the great England which I knew and lived in, should 
go into our grievance, to the exclusion of imperialistic 
England whose point of view is necessarily narrow 
and prejudiced. Old Egypt is again being born into 
life and liberty, and no Englishman worthy of the 
name could be instrumental in her moral death, or in 
the cruel disappointment and bitterness of a young 
nation which is even worse than death. The country 
has found its soul and craves to be nourished accord- 
ingly. Nothing but the rule of love can harmonize with 
the world's new temper, and if England now believes 
in the gospel of force she will have won the war but 
lost her soul. 

I beg to remain, sir, 

Yours very faithfully, 

(Sgd.) W. E. MAKRAM. 



April 25, 1919. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



020 914 654 n % 



.EZFd 



020 914 654 A 



Hollinger Corp. 
_i_r ft <; 



